hearsay rule

Any evidence, whether oral or documentary is hearsay if its
probative value is not based on the personal knowledge of the
witness but on the knowledge of some other person not on the
witness stand.

Reason for Exclusion of Hearsay Evidence
It is excluded because the party against whom it is presented
is deprived of his right and opportunity to cross examine the
person to whom the statements or writings are attributed.

Hearsay evidence not objected to may be admissible but whether
objected to or not, has no probative value, and as opposed to
direct primary evidence, the latter always prevails.

General Rule
Hearsay Evidence is inadmissible.

1.  Dying Declaration
2.  Declaration Against Interest
3.  Act Or Declaration Against Pedigree
4.  Family Reputation Or Tradition Against Pedigree
5.  Common Reputation
6.  Res Gestae
7.  Entries In The Ordinary Course of Business
8.  Entries In Official Records
9.  Commercial Lists
10. Learned Treatises
11. Testimony Or Deposition At A Former Proceeding

Reason for the Exceptions
The exceptions are admissible for reasons of NECESSITY and

Doctrine of Independently Relevant Statements
The witness may testify to the statements made by a person, if
for instance, the fact that such statements were made by the
latter would indicate the latter’s mental state and physical

Independent of whether the facts stated are true or not, they
are relevant since they are the facts in issue or are
circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue.

Two Classes of Independently Relevant Statements
1. Those statement s which are the very fact in issue
2. Those statements which are circumstantial evidence of the fact
   in issue. It includes the following:
   a. Statement of a person showing his state of mind that is,
      his mental condition, knowledge, belief, intention, ill-will,
      and other emotions;
   b. Statements of persons which shows his physical condition
      as illness and the like;
   c. Statements of a person from which an inference may be
      made as to the state of mind of another, that is,
      knowledge, belief, motive, good/bad faith of the latter;
   d. Statements which may identify the date, place, person
      in question;
   e. Statements showing the lack of credibility of a witness

Explain The Meaning Of The Hearsay Rule
Suggested Answer:
a. A Witness can testify
b. Only to those facts
c. Which he knows of his personal knowledge;
d. That is which are derived from his own perception,
e. Except as otherwise provided in these rules of Court.

Consequently, facts which are not derived from the perception
of the witness is hearsay, and not admissible.

The rule is not limited to oral testimony, it also includes
writings. (20 Am. Jur. 400)

Examples of Hearsay Evidence
1. The testimony of a witness as to what he has heard another
   person say about the facts in dispute.
   (People vs. Reyes, 76 Phil. 354; Aldecoa & Co., vs. WArner
   Barnes & Co., 30 Phil. 153) NOTE: See concept of independent
   relevant statement.
2. Affidavits.
   (Marisfosque vs. Luna, L-9095, May 25, 1957; People v.
   Pagkaliwagan, 76 Phil. 457)
3. A letter offered in evidence to establish the facts in issue.
   (Pastor vs. Gaspar, 2 Phil. 592; People v. Carlos, 47 Phil. 626)
4. A medical certificate to the extent of the injuries found
   by the doctor on the offended party's body.
   (De Guia vs. Meralco, 40 Phil. 706)
5. A resolution of the municipal council of a certain
   municipality as to the character of an accused in a criminal
   case. (U.S. vs. Tanjuatco, 1 Phil. 374)

General Rule
Affidavits without presenting afiant in court is mere hearsay.
The constitutional right to confrontation precludes reliance
on affidavits. Such a constitutional safeguard cannot be satisfied
unless the opportunity is given to the accused to test the
credibility of any person, who, by affidavit or deposition would
impute the commission of an offense to him. It would be to
disregard one of the most valuable guarantees of a person
accused if solely on the affidavits presented, his guilt could
be predicated.
(People vs. Santos, et al., 139 SCRA 586-587 citing
People vs. Lavarez, 23 SCRA 1301)

When Affidavits are given weight.
1. Where said affidavits are overwhelming, uncontroverted by
   competent evidence and not inherently improbable.
   (Top-Weld Manufacturing, Inc. v. ECED, S.A., et al.,
   138 SCRA 132)
2. Under the Rule on Summary Procedure for civil cases;
3. When a motion is based on facts not appearing of record the
   court may hear the matter on affidavits or depositions
   presented by the respective parties, but the court may direct
   that the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony
   or depositions.
   (Sec. 7, Rule 133, ROC)

Explain and illustrate the concept of an independent relevant
Suggested Answer:
It is a statement intended not to establish the truth of the
facts asserted in that statement, but to establish only the
tenor of the statement, not the truth of the facts therein

In a libel case, if the prosecution witness testifies that he
heard the accused say that the complainant was a rapist, this
testimony is admissible not to prove that the complainant was
really a rapist, but merely to show what the accused uttered.
Independent relevant statements are hearsay in character but
not legal hearsay. hence they are not considered as exceptions
to the hearsay rule.